← Risk register SOC 13-1199 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Business Operations Specialists, All Other

1,087,090 US workers · median $83,050/yr · Business

EXPOSED

This is a catch-all bucket — program coordinators, process improvement analysts, vendor and contract administrators, business continuity and compliance support staff — and the modal worker spends most of the day in spreadsheets, decks, trackers, dashboards, and status write-ups, which is exactly what current models do at usable quality. What survives is not the artifact but the cross-functional wrangling: getting a reluctant department to actually change a process, deciding which of three bad tradeoffs to escalate, and owning the outcome when a rollout stalls. No license, no signature requirement, so there is no regulatory floor under the role — the protection is purely organizational trust and accountability.

10-year outlook: Reporting-and-coordination headcount in this bucket shrinks meaningfully over ten years while a smaller tier of program owners and negotiators who carry accountability grows more valuable.

US employment, 2021–2025+5.5%
1,030,3301,087,090 workers

Headcount grew steadily across the period.

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+3% 1,205,700 → 1,242,000 on the projections basis

Exposed, but growing

AI can already do a lot of these tasks, and the BLS still expects +3% more of these jobs by 2034. Demand for the output is growing faster than the work is being automated away — the mechanism BLS gives for software developers, and the combination people most often misread as an error.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~108,200 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

PurserE-tailerMediatorCampaignerCaseworkerE-MerchantClaim AgentConciliatorLease BuyerPort PurserShip PurserBar ExaminerCue SelectorGrant WriterMerchandiserShop StewardWeb MerchantWeb RetailerGrant ManagerGrant OfficerSpecial AgentBusiness AgentChange ManagerCustoms Broker

This is a catch-all code, not a single job

The BLS uses Business Operations Specialists, All Other for work that doesn't fit any named occupation, so it covers roles that have little in common with each other. Two consequences worth knowing before you read anything below:

If a more specific occupation on the register describes what you actually do, that page is the one to trust.

Score — 34/100 resistance

Holding it up: judgment & accountability (11/20). Weakest point: liability shield (2/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 9 + 4 + 2 + 8 + 11 = 34. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 9/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier Building the weekly KPI rollup, reconciling vendor invoices against PO lines, drafting the SOP after the process change, and turning meeting notes into a RAID log are all now generated at first-draft quality; what holds the score at 9 rather than 4 is the standing-in-a-doorway work — chasing the finance lead who missed the data cutoff, renegotiating a scope line with a supplier who is already behind, and sequencing a rollout across three teams with conflicting calendars.

Embodiment 4/20

Fully desk- and screen-based Occasional site walkthroughs for a process mapping exercise or a physical inventory count keep this off zero, but the desk, the laptop, and the conference room are the whole workplace, and nothing you touch has a torque spec.

Liability shield 2/20

No licence, no signature requirement There is no licence to hold — PMP, Lean Six Sigma, or CBAP are resume signals, not statutory gatekeepers — and when a contract term or a compliance filing goes wrong the signature on it belongs to a procurement officer, controller, or general counsel, not to you.

Trust premium 8/20

Some relationship component You accumulate real institutional capital — knowing which director actually approves things versus who is cc'd, and which system of record is quietly wrong — but that is knowledge about the organization rather than a client relationship, and it transfers to your successor within a quarter or two of handover.

Judgment & accountability 11/20

Meaningful discretion You decide what gets escalated, which of three imperfect vendor options to recommend, and whether a milestone is genuinely at risk or just late-looking, but the go/no-go, the spend authority, and the headcount consequences sit one or two levels above you, which is what caps this at 11 rather than putting it in the ownership band.

Scored twice. An independent second run returned 34/100 — EXPOSED, agreeing with the verdict above.

This score sits on a verdict boundary. At 34/100 it is one point from COOKED. Re-scoring moves results by a point or two, so here the score is more informative than the label.

Confidence: medium · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: judgment, trust

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · MIT OpenCourseWare — problem-solving and analytical method courses free · Coursera — decision making under uncertainty free to audit · Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 46/100, still EXPOSED.

4 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening judgment accountability +4

    Formal internal ownership of AI-generated operational outputs: e.g. a named 'human owner of record' for each automated workflow, of the kind the EU AI Act Art. 26 human-oversight duty and NIST AI RMF 'accountable role' guidance are pushing large firms to designate. If ops specialists become the designated reviewers/escalation owners for automated vendor, continuity and compliance processes, the role's consequential-call share rises rather than falls.

  • plausible task resistance +3

    Genuine two-tier structure: deck-building, tracker maintenance and status write-ups automate first, leaving cross-functional change management — persuading a reluctant department, negotiating scope with a vendor, deciding what to escalate. If headcount contracts onto the wrangling tier, measured resistance of the remaining job rises even with no new capability barrier.

  • plausible liability shield +3

    Sarbanes-Oxley-style attestation extended downward: SOX 404 already forces named process owners to certify internal controls, and SEC cyber/incident disclosure rules (2023) push continuity and third-party risk into certified territory. A rule or auditor practice requiring a named individual to attest that a vendor-risk or continuity control was human-reviewed would create a signature floor where none exists.

  • plausible liability shield +2

    Certification bodies (PMI, ASQ, DRI International, ISO 22301 lead-implementer regimes) becoming procurement prerequisites for government or regulated-industry contracts — a credential gate, not personal liability, so worth less than a true licence.

The limit. Even with all of these, this SOC bucket is heterogeneous and mostly unlicensed; the trust premium is organizational, not market-facing, so buyers cannot pay for a named human. Realistic ceiling is mid-40s, and the gains land unevenly — compliance and continuity subroles capture nearly all of them while program coordinators and process analysts capture none.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 386 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 76,600 $104,770 +26%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 50,470 $82,750 +0%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 43,720 $80,020 -4%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 39,190 $92,120 +11%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 38,800 $101,920 +23%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 31,200 $83,600 +1%
Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO 28,670 $94,990 +14%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 24,360 $82,060 -1%

Best paid

Lexington Park, MD 2,180 $136,660 +65%
Huntsville, AL 3,100 $124,950 +50%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 11,970 $108,330 +30%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $83,050. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this

The score above is about what the work exposes. This is reporting about real deployments in this occupation — the difference between "could be automated" and "somebody automated it."

Visa

1 of 1 reported case, with sources

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.